Balochistan Needs A Rethink —ejaz Haider

Negotiations are a function of a secular conception of the state, not a theological one. The Baloch nationalists may be involved in some excesses but they can still be dealt with through a combination of strategies. Not so the Islamists

The Balochistan National Party (BNP) Information Secretary and former senator Mr Sanaullah Baloch has told this newspaper of a presumed policy by the federal government “to pit the religious elements against the Baloch nationalists”.

Just in case anyone thought Mr Baloch was being mealy-mouthed about the identity of the “religious elements”, he referred to the “supporters” of the Taliban who have allegedly “captured land worth Rs2 billion in the eastern and western parts of Quetta” to “undermine the Baloch nationalist movement”.

Mr Baloch also “wondered why the state had not carried out military operations against these elements while it was still attacking Dera Bugti and Sui areas”. He also referred to the problem of the Afghan refugees and called them “a burden on the economy of Balochistan and the biggest cause of lawlessness and terrorism in the country’s largest province”.

Since Balochistan is strategically immensely important for Pakistan, Mr Baloch’s allegations cannot be brushed aside lightly. Let’s try and go step by step.

Mr Baloch has referred to “Baloch nationalists” and the “supporters of the Taliban”. His first categorisation means two things: one, there is a presence of elements in Balochistan who are not fully subsumed in the larger national identity; two, these elements, traversing the spectrum from the moderate to the hard-line, are opposed to what can broadly be called the status quo.

Since we have referred to the moderates at one end and hard-liners at the other, it is safe to assume that the tactics adopted to compel the state to change the status quo would range from negotiations to a resort to violence. Not only that, we can also assume that changing the status quo itself may vary in terms of expectations and definition from the moderates (minimalist) to the hard-liners (maximalist).

For instance, the moderates may, both in terms of tactics as well as expectations, want greater autonomy for the province and greater control over its resources (changing the terms of the National Finance Commission Award and the Council of Common Interest, for instance). This would mean reviewing the issue of provincial autonomy in the 1973 Constitution, not just in relation to Balochistan, but across the board, besides revisiting the formulae for the allocation of resources etc and adjudication for provincial grievances.

Leaving aside the modalities, and there are many, this would still boil down to the acceptance of a federal arrangement, though with less centralised powers for Islamabad. And, this is a negotiating position, one in which staying within the system and working it to one’s advantage would be considered better than opting out and subverting the system.

Rising higher on the conflict ladder, we reach the demand for a confederal arrangement. Confederations are usually created by treaty and adopt a common constitution. The central government only deals with such critical issues such as defence, foreign affairs, a common currency etc while letting the states be and providing equal support to all member-states. Essentially, it is, according to modern terminology, a permanent union of sovereign states for common action in relation to other states.

In theory, confederal arrangements allow smaller, sovereign state-units, to enjoy their freedom of action at one end and the binding support of a central structure for joint defence at the other.

This is generally unworkable. The confederation of German States (1815-66) and North German States (1866-71), as well as other such instances, show the difficulty of such arrangements, both at the conceptual and functional levels. Such arrangements are always dogged by the problem of where sovereignty rests and with whom, and from that flows functional problems of effective control, support, allocation of resources etc.

A demand by federal units for a confederal arrangement is thus a covert euphemism for breaking away, not exactly a negotiating position for reviewing a federalist structure.

On the other hand, autonomous units that seek to come together under such arrangement either break up (several examples) and go back to exercising state sovereignty or, as roughly may be the case with the European Union, retain the core of sovereignty while relinquishing some aspects of it on the periphery.

The last rung on this ladder is of course secession — overt breaking away. This is not a negotiating position at all. It leads to conflict, usually armed. The secession of East Pakistan is a case in point. But precisely because of that experience, the Centre of the Pakistani state is likely to come down hard, and ruthlessly, on those elements that might start with such a position — or even arrive at it.

However, in the case of Balochistan, simmered as it has for a long time, it would be safe to argue that unless the situation is resolved, we may see more movement from the moderate end of the spectrum towards the hard-liners.

If Mr Baloch is right then it seems the state has decided to neutralise the “secular” Baloch nationalists with their parochial, ethnically-grounded agenda through the use of “religious” elements who may not be ethnically parochial but want to sacralise the state and link it up with a mythical pan-Islamism.

And pan-Islamism, while being expansive in terms of rejecting parochial identitieswithin Islam is nonetheless reductionist in terms of how it views the out-groups and conceives its modes of interaction with them.

Here we run into two problems then.

The first has to do with the Baloch nationalists. If it is about peoples’ representation then we have unfortunately not seen such movement so far in that province. The province’s leaders, for all the clamouring about rights etcetera, have woefully fallen short of reforming their social structures. The late Akbar Khan Bugti not only ruled his area like a medieval tyrant, Dera Bugti even today has the worst human development indices in Pakistan.

The same is true of other sardars who claim to speak on behalf of the people of Balochistan.

Is it possible, before the Baloch nationalists begin to talk about democracy and rights and resource allocation, that they could show themselves up to be “modern” rather than celebrating one of the worst tribal structures one can find anywhere?

This, let it be said, is as important, if not more, than the issue of devolving powers to the provinces which must be done as per the original spirit of the 1973 constitution. Even so, without internal social reformation, no amount of provincial autonomy will help the Baloch develop meaningfully or join the development mainstream.

In fact, this is just the point which may help clinch the argument in favour of allowing development to go through, something the Baloch nationalists have not allowed so far, opting instead to cut their nose to spite their face. This social reformation should be the agenda of the moderates who must also negotiate with the Centre for greater rights.

On the part of the state, pitting Islamists against a “threat” that can be dealt with through negotiations is the worst possible policy because it is likely to view tactical victories as a strategic, long-term plus which such victories, if there might such be, definitely are not.

The state must remember that negotiations are a function of a secular conception of the state, not a theological one. The Baloch nationalists may be involved in some excesses, but they can still be dealt with through a combination of strategies.

Not so the Islamists.

Ejaz Haider is Consulting Editor of The Friday Times and Op-Ed Editor of Daily Times. He can be reached at sapper@dailytimes.com.pk

Related Article

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C01%5C05%5Cstory_5-1-2009_pg1_11

Taliban consolidating grip on Quetta: Sanaullah Baloch

* BNP leader says ‘establishment’ wants to pitch Taliban against Baloch nationalists
* Says Taliban supporters have captured land worth Rs 2 billion in Quetta * PPP has taken no steps to increase prospects of reconciliation
* Demands more Baloch control and larger share in mining projects

By Malik Siraj Akbar

QUETTA: Balochistan National Party (BNP) Information Secretary and former senator Sanaullah Baloch has disclosed that the supporters of Taliban have captured land worth Rs 2 billion in the eastern and western parts of Quetta with the covert support of the ‘establishment’ in order to undermine the Baloch nationalist movement and promote Talibanisation in Balochistan.

In an interview with Daily Times on Sunday, the former senator said the government had failed to establish its writ in Quetta, where the Taliban and their supporters were consolidating their grip. Several parts of the provincial capital have become ‘no-go areas’ where the Taliban and their supporters have consolidated their position, he said.

Baloch said the government was fully aware of these encroachments but it was deliberately silent because the Taliban enjoy the support of the government and its intelligence agencies who wish to pit the religious elements against the Baloch nationalists.

“We are surprised why the government does not undertake a military operation against these elements who have openly challenged the writ of the government. Military operations were carried out in Dera Bugti and Sui areas by the government on the pretext of establishing the writ of the government, but the state machinery does not move against the Taliban and their supporters who have illegally and forcefully captured large areas of land in Balochistan,” he said.

Sanaullah said the government was trying to patronise the Taliban elements in Quetta and its outskirts in order to undermine the power of the actual democratic forces. The Afghan refugees, besides being a burden on the economy of Balochistan, have become the biggest cause of lawlessness and terrorism in the country’s largest province, Baloch said.

Billions of rupees were being spent on eliminating the Taliban and their supporters in Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the NWFP, he said, asking why the government was ignoring the ‘alarmingly dangerous moves’ of the Taliban and giving them protection in Quetta.

The BNP leader criticised the government for initiating fresh operations in Dera Bugti and Naseerabad areas, adding that such unprovoked operations were likely to escalate tensions in Balochistan. “The government is making Balochistan a battlefield again,” he said.

The operations have made the militant groups end their ceasefire which would further deteriorate the security situation, he said. The Baloch leadership had welcomed the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) government despite the imprisonment of its leadership with the hope that the PPP would learn lessons from the past and pay serious attention to the Baloch issue, he said, adding: “We have deep respect for the PPP and its leaders but we are not going to compromise on the Baloch interests at the cost of our friendship with the PPP leaders. The democratic as well as armed groups in the province are losing faith in the present government.”

Reconciliation: Asked if the BNP and other Baloch leaders welcomed the recent statement of PPP leader Babar Awan that “the Baloch would hear good news in March”, Sanullah accused the PPP leadership of using ‘delaying tactics’. In 1977, the PPP had delayed the resolution of the Baloch issue by hoping that the crisis in Balochistan would gradually fade away, Baloch said, adding that the PPP was showing a lack of interest in Balochistan again by not understanding the urgency needed to permanently resolve the issue.

“In politics you need to reconcile at the right time. Timeliness is a crucial factor in politics which the PPP seems to be missing in Balochistan’s context,” he commented. Recalling a promise made by late Benazir Bhutto, the former PPP chairperson, who had agreed in the Charter of Democracy to establish federal tribunals to settle the cases of the provinces against the federal government, besides ensuring complete provincial autonomy to the provinces, Baloch said the PPP did not take any initiatives that would brighten the prospects of reconciliation.

Citing the failure of the reconciliatory committees formed by the previous government, Sanaullah Baloch said the Baloch had always agreed to sit on the negotiation table and sort out the problems, but the government had been calling them terrorists and traitors. “We have asked the PPP government to punish the elements who carried out massive human rights violation and remove the unnecessary FC checkposts in Balochistan so that we see some progress made by the government as a confidence-building measure. But our demands have not been met yet.”

Mines and minerals: The BNP leader demanded the local Baloch youth be given technical know-how in mining and geological sectors so that they could handle the Saindak and Reko Dik projects.

“We want agreements on the Saindak Gold and Copper project and Reko Dik to be reviewed. The chief minister issued such statements recently but no headway has been made yet in this regard. The Baloch share in the revenue generated at Saindak project is merely 2 percent while the federal government takes 48 percent, and 50 percent goes to China. This is an unjust formula that needs to be revised. We consider this utter exploitation,” he said, recommending that bidding should be conducted in the international stock exchanges for the interested mining companies that want to run these projects. “The government of Balochistan should be given the right to choose the company that can best run these projects while keeping in view the fact that the benefits of the projects should go to the people of Balochistan,” said the former senator.